Over-indebtedness in britain

Generali

carolt wrote: »

See my post.

So what do you suggest for those who, acc to you, have proved 'their inability to exist'?:eek:

Let them starve?

To reverse the question, what would you do with people that refuse to earn a living for themselves carolt?

I have often pondered this question as I have never read the argument from the Left as to why people who are fit and well should be able to spend a lifetime claiming benefits.

Can you shed some light?

carolt

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Then you were fortunate. Many aren't.

In fact you illustrate another trend of people banking on inheritances ( primarily assets in the form of property) to clear their lifestyle debts.

My comment wasn't directed at you in any form.

As for financial education. Many are going to receive direct education through their own lifestyle choice. Hopefully the lessions they learn will be passed onto on the next generation.

I certainly wouldn't describe losing my OH's grandma as 'fortunate' - I loved her dearly. Bad choice of phrase, perhaps.

I do get your point. My (earlier) point was that we could have paid the debts off eventually anyway, due to rising earnings.

But realistically, we do need a way that people on low incomes can survive - these days tax credits exist - back then (less than a decade ago) they didn't.

Abaxas' preferred solution of letting the poor starve is not mine.

Ingsy

carolt wrote: »

Oh no, bankers might be slightly poorer.

How tragic is that.

No need to get sarcastic with me, I was just pointing out why they don't reduce rates. Not supporting it.

lostinrates

[QUOTE=Generali;31245551o reverse the question, what would you do with people that refuse to earn a living for themselves carolt?

I have often pondered this question as I have never read the argument from the Left as to why people who are fit and well should be able to spend a lifetime claiming benefits.

Can you shed some light?[/QUOTE]

Now gen, you know I'm not left wing, but I think the ideal is that those who can work do in the left, contributing to the whole of society from the pooled resource, surely..just as in the right of wing those who can will succeed: both scenarios are ideals, and neither foolproof.

carolt

Generali wrote: »

To reverse the question, what would you do with people that refuse to earn a living for themselves carolt?

I have often pondered this question as I have never read the argument from the Left as to why people who are fit and well should be able to spend a lifetime claiming benefits.

Can you shed some light?

No, I absolutely can't.

The left that I know and espouse is the one that says "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need".

See the bit in bold.

I have as much problem as you do with those who refuse to work "according to his ability" as you do. Probably more - you might see it as free market forces at work or something.

I just see them as lazy, selfish gits who should be made to work, preferably in a rather unpleasant way.

(NB I do think childcare, caring etc = work; so the Single Sues of this world should not be ignored or counted as workshy.)

abaxas

carolt wrote: »

Abaxas' preferred solution of letting the poor starve is not mine.

No, my solution is for people to be self sufficient and look after themselves.

Debt means that people have less money for that self sufficiency, why should people disadvantage themselves long term for the immedite fix.

If people cant be bothered, why should someone help them.

Generali

carolt wrote: »

No, I absolutely can't.

The left that I know and espouse is the one that says "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need".

See the bit in bold.

I have as much problem as you do with those who refuse to work "according to his ability" as you do. Probably more - you might see it as free market forces at work or something.

I just see them as lazy, selfish gits who should be made to work, preferably in a rather unpleasant way.

(NB I do think childcare, caring etc = work; so the Single Sues of this world should not be ignored or counted as workshy.)

The trouble is, if you won't let them starve then what will you do?

PS I agree with your final statement FWIW.

PPS AIUI, Lenin actually said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work". I think it's one of those misquotes like "Elementary my dear Watson".

Thrugelmir

carolt wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't describe losing my OH's grandma as 'fortunate' - I loved her dearly. Bad choice of phrase, perhaps.

With hindsight I could have been explicit as to the context.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

I have often pondered this question as I have never read the argument from the Left as to why people who are fit and well should be able to spend a lifetime claiming benefits.

Can you shed some light?

Probably because they don’t I would like to think that most people would accept that some form of benefit system needs to exist but just because you vote Labour it doesn’t mean you think people have a right to spend a lifetime on benefits.

carolt

Generali wrote: »

The trouble is, if you won't let them starve then what will you do?

PS I agree with your final statement FWIW.

PPS AIUI, Lenin actually said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work". I think it's one of those misquotes like "Elementary my dear Watson".

Who cares what Lenin said - he is hardly the founder of Communism.

A quick google throws up what Marx says, which I think is more relevant:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.